[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] OpenPGP Backend based on Sequoia (Issue #1978)

[nwalfield]

> The advantage of building around the current API is that transition is smoother, eg this looks like it could be provided as an alternative to the existing version (at least for a time). That said, nobody will shed a tear over the existing API if replaced by something coherent. A soname bump is planned in rpm 4.19 (in 2023) so that'd be the first opportunity for such changes . Allowing for bigger changes in the PGP area is one of the reasons for that plan, and this is a very good time to start thinking about that.

I think it shouldn't be a big deal to support the current API and a new API for a time.

I'm happy to help design a new API.  That should probably be done in a new issue.  I suspect that you probably have opinions so perhaps we should use a high bandwidth communication channel to first synchronize, and then switch to written communication.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1978#issuecomment-1081790565
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1978/1081790565 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20220329/b0549096/attachment.html>